Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in judgment text· [2025] KEELC 4699 (KLR)

Mbugua & 3 others v Turi Gardens Limited & another (Environment and Land Case E363 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4699 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court (Kenya)
24 June 2025
MCMBOGO C.G.
3,695 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~15 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to stop a tenant's eviction because the tenants could not show their losses couldn't be paid with money damages.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiffs/applicants, tenants of the 1st defendant under a lease dated 1st January 2021 for a term of five years and three months, moved the court by notice of motion dated 15th March 2025 under Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 63 of the Civil Procedure Act. They sought injunctions restraining the 2nd defendant from evicting them from, or interfering with their occupation of, LR. No. 1/1396, an order compelling the 2nd defendant to withdraw an eviction notice dated 27th February 2025, and directions to the OCPD Kilimani to enforce compliance. They argued the lease was an overriding interest under Section 28 of the Land Registration Act, that the sale to the 2nd defendant while their suit was pending offended the doctrine of lis pendens, and that eviction would cause irreparable harm to businesses employing over 35 people. The 2nd defendant asserted it was a bona fide purchaser for value holding an indefeasible title, that the lease was lawfully terminated on 26th July 2024, and that any loss was compensable in damages. The 1st defendant maintained the plaintiffs knew of and consented to the sale, needed to salvage another charged property, and that the plaintiffs' losses were quantified. The court identified a single issue: whether the plaintiffs met the threshold for an injunction. Applying Giella v Cassman Brown and Nguruman Limited, it found the lease agreement existed and a prima facie case was established. However, the plaintiffs had known of the intended sale and relocation had been discussed; irreparable loss was not proved, as damages could compensate them. The notice of motion was dismissed with costs in the cause, delivered virtually on 24th June 2025 by Hon. Mbogo C.G., Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiffs established a prima facie case with a probability of success

Holding

Yes - the lease agreement between the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant was found to be in existence, establishing a prima facie case.

Reasoning

The court found it undisputed that a tenancy agreement for 5 years and 3 months existed between the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant. The returned rent and subsequent sale with eviction notice raised a legal right apparently infringed, warranting explanation or rebuttal. This satisfied the first Giella hurdle, but the analysis continued to the second.

p. 7
02

Whether the plaintiffs demonstrated irreparable injury not compensable by damages

Holding

No - irreparable loss was not proved.

Reasoning

The documents showed the plaintiffs knew of the 1st defendant's plans to sell the property to offset a loan facility and relocation had been discussed. The court found no demonstration that the loss could not be measured or adequately compensated by an award of damages, so the second Nguruman hurdle failed. The failure at this stage was dispositive given the sequential application of the tests.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • The triple requirements for a temporary injunction (prima facie case, irreparable injury, balance of convenience) are separate, distinct and sequential hurdles.
  • A prima facie case in civil matters is one where a legal right has apparently been infringed calling for an explanation or rebuttal from the opposite party.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion dated 15th March, 2025 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs in the cause
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 40 Rules 1, 2, 3 & 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 63(c) and (e) of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mbugua & 3 others v Turi Gardens Limited & another (Environment and Land Case E363 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4699 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment text. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4699/eng@2025-06-24

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.